Dr.

RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY,

LUCKNOW

2019-2020

Psychology-III

Topic

CRIMNAL PROFILING-SERIAL KILLERS

SUBMITTED TO SUBMITTED BY

Ms. Isha Yadav Nikhil DEO

Asstt. Prof. (Faculty of Psychology) Enrolment No—180101091
B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) 3rd Semester

1
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I owe a great many thanks to a great many people who helped and supported me during the
writing of this project.

Words are inadequate in offering my deep sense of gratitude to my Professor for his precious
guidance.

With his enthusiasm, his inspiration and his great efforts to explain things clearly and simply,
he helped throughout my analysis of work with lots of encouragement, sound advice, and
good innovation.

I would also like to thank the librarians of Dr. Madhu Limaye Library who extended their
assistance to me by helping me out consult the relevant books.

I know that despite my best efforts some discrepancies might have crept in which I believe
my humble Professor would forgive.

2
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………….4
2 History of Criminal Profiling. ……………………………………………4-5
3. Types of Profiling…………………………………………………………….8-12
4. FBI system of criminal profiling ……………………………………………………7-10
5. Providing New Methods of Criminal Profiling ………………………………………10-14
6. The impact of media influence on investing……………………………….........14-15
7. Conclusion…...…………..................................................................15
8.Bibliography...………………………………………………………16

3
 INTRODUCTION

Names such as Jack the Ripper, Ted Bundy, and the Zodiac Killer have instilled fear in
Americans. The individuals attached to these names are often left unidentified, but are
perceived as “typical” serial killers: middle-aged White males with varying degrees of
personality disorders. Serial murders are relatively rare; however, Americans are
simultaneously horrified and fascinated by the concept. The notion of serial killers has
existed throughout history. Although the exact origin of the term is unknown, many scholars
believe the term may have originated in the 1970s within law enforcement circles (Morton &
Hilts, 2005). The highly publicized “Son of Sam” killings lead to Special Agent Robert
Ressler of the F.B.I. to coin the term serial murderer in New York City during the 1970s
(Miller, 2014a). The qualifications for being labelled a serial killer have been debated
throughout history. Serial killers are often confused with mass murderers due to similarities
between the large numbers of victims as well as the time elapsed between crimes. The
criminal prosecution of serial killers has become more difficult due to the influence of
criminal profiling. The objective of this paper is to investigate the criminal profiling of serial
killers in the United States, and determine the effectiveness of using definitions,
typographies, and motives as investigative tools for law enforcement agencies

History of Criminal Profiling

Historically, serial killers have been studied since the 1400s, beginning with French
nobleman Gilles de Rais who reportedly tortured, raped, and murdered hundreds of children
(Miller, 2014a). Arguably, the most well-known serial killer is Jack the Ripper, who
murdered multiple women in England during the 1800s seemingly without motive, which
helped to create the moral panic surrounding serial killings (Fox & Levin, 1998; Miller,
2014a). Even more telling is the lack of increasing knowledge on the topic. The majority of
information law enforcement agencies use to apprehend serial killers’ dates back to 1866
when Von Krafft-Ebing published his book Psychopathic Sexualis, which detailed the
different characteristics serial killers possess (Miller, 2014a). Von Krafft-Ebing detailed the
following characteristics of serial killers: a tendency of lying, manipulation, taking souvenirs
from crime scenes, using ligatures, torturing victims for sexual arousal, using pornography,
humiliation or degradation of victims, and 3 van Aken: The Use of Criminal Profilers
Published by SJSU ScholarWorks, 2015 THEMIS 130 careful planning in order to avoid
detection (Von Krafft-Ebing, as cited in Miller, 2014a). He argued that serial killers have
signature aspects in their crimes, which provides deeper understanding into the personality
and psychology of serial killers (Hicks & Sales, 2006; Miller, 2014a). The characteristics
detailed in Von Krafft-Ebing’s book are still used as the basis of modern criminal profiling.
Criminal profiling, or “offender profiling,” was used as an investigative tool in the 1960s
when James A. Brussel helped New York police catch the “Mad Bomber” (Scheflin, 1998).
For a short time, law enforcement agencies ceased using the investigative tool after
psychologists and psychiatrists were unable to accurately profile a notorious serial killer, the
Boston Strangler, but when “stranger murders” became much more prevalent in recent
decades, law enforcement agencies returned to the concept of profiling (Scheflin, 1998).

4
Special Agent Robert Ressler coined the term “serial killer” in order to replace the label of
“stranger killings,” as well as to show the repetitive nature of the murders (Pakhomou, 2004).
Unfortunately, the current definitions of serial killings remain widely divided amongst all
involved agencies.

Types of Profiling
The FBI characterizes a serial killer as an individual who has various degrees of a personality
disorder and unlawfully kills two or more individuals at different times
Holmes and De Burger (1985) METHOD.
Holmes and De Burger (1985) proposed five typographies: the visionary types respond to
delusional voices instructing them to commit murder; the mission-oriented types target
specific victims who are viewed as “evil”, such as prostitutes or particular racial groups; the
hedonistic serial killers seek pleasure or thrill from the killings; the control types desire
power over their victims; and the predator types “hunt” for their victims and view the killings
as a recreational activity

The collective group of typographies widely accepted by academia include sexual, paraphilic,
sadistic, delusion, hate-oriented, thrill, attention seekers, cult-oriented, and instrumental
(White, Lester, Gentile, & Jespersen, 2010). Similarly, the F.B.I. classifies serial killers as
organized, methodical, careful, and purposeful—or disorganized, erratic and usually suffering
from mental illness (Scheflin, 1998; Taylor et al., 2012; Warf & Waddell, 2002). These
typographies are intended to gain better understanding of the motives and personalities of
serial killers, as well as providing assistance for law enforcement agencies to apprehend the
killers (Snook, Cullen, Mokros, & Harbort, 2005). The F.B.I. most notably uses the Holmes
and De Burger typologies: power/control killers, visionary killers, mission killers, and
hedonistic killers

General Profile of Serial Killers

Overall, research done on serial killers is extremely ambiguous. Law enforcement agencies,
as well as psychologists or psychiatrists, have varying beliefs about the typographies,
motives, and definitions pertaining to serial killers, so no universal profile of serial killers
exists. Instead, many mental health practitioners, law enforcement agents, and academics
differ on the reason serial killers commit murders, and how their behaviours, before and after
apprehension, affect their classification. This divide between agencies makes prosecuting
serial killers in criminal court difficult because there is little information that is universally
agreed upon.

5
Serial killers are often viewed as having dysfunctional childhoods or poor relationships
between familial units, and stereotypically wet their beds, play with fire, and abuse animals
(Miller, 2014b; Warf & Waddell, 2002). Similarly, many of them are thought to have grown
up as highly sensitive children who harboured feelings of rejection, neglect, and loneliness,
leading to high levels of hostility toward specific groups of people (Miller, 2014a). As
children, these individuals are often abnormally engrossed in pornography and were sexually
abused (Warf & Waddell, 2002). As they grow from adolescence and into adulthood, their
crimes escalate from assault, slowly rising to battery, arson, sexual violence, and ultimately
homicide (Miller, 2014b). During their childhoods, serial killers often live lonely lives with
little or no support to help them mature into fully functioning members of society. These
children often become anti-social adults because of their experiences growing up (Warf &
Waddell, 2002). Researchers suggest that individual experiences influence the type of
behaviour children will exhibit in their adult lives, as well as their potential criminal
behaviour.

Adulthood Profile
Generally, serial killers are most often identified as middle-aged White males who blend
easily with the crowd, but serial killers are all different, and therefore, many do not fit this
generic “profile” provided by law enforcement. Contrary to popular belief, serial killers are
racially diverse and often mirror the United States’ population demographics (Morton &
Hilts, 2005). Likewise, serial killers are often viewed as suffering from severe mental health
problems, but studies done on current serial killers state that the vast majority of them do not
suffer from any debilitating mental disorder (Pachomius, 2004). Similarly, serial killers are
thought of as nomads who choose their victims as he or she travels across state lines;
however, only thirty-four percent of serial killers travel long distances to commit their
crimes, while 52% confine their murders within a specific geographical location (Fox &
Levin, 1998). According to the NCAVC, many serial killers are fully functioning adults who
do not suffer from any outwardly apparent social or psychological disorders (Morton & Hilts,
2005). In fact, the notorious BTK killer, Dennis Rader, who taunted law enforcement
agencies for 30 years, was married with two children, a Boy Scout leader, and a leader in his
local church congregation during the times of his killings (Morton & Hilts, 2005). The fact
that most profilers consider serial killers to be exceptionally ordinary could contribute to the
increased societal fear associated with serial murders

Motivation
Among the wildly debated aspects of serial killings, or serial murders, are the differences in
the motives behind the crimes. In fact, many media outlets portray serial killers as mindless
killers who possess no real motives, and that is what makes them so terrifying (Cameron,
2003; Warf & Waddell, 2002). However, most law enforcement agencies and psychological
profilers disagree with the media’s portrayal of these individuals because they understand that
serial killers are often driven to commit murder by the perverse logic known only to
themselves (Warf & Waddell, 2002). FBI profilers believe serial killers are driven to commit
crimes by unique motives rather than no motivation at all. Thus, it is difficult to determine the

6
general motives that drive most or all serial killers to commit crimes because considerable
diversity exists between all serial killers (Warf & Waddell, 2002). The media most often
depicts the average serial killer as a power-hungry sadist who derives immense sexual
pleasure from inflicting pain on their victims, and is usually motivated by the desire to exert
power over them (Fox & Levin, 1998; Ioana, 2013). The FBI recognizes seven general
categories of motivation: anger, criminal enterprise, financial gain, ideology, power and thrill,
psychosis, or sexually based motivation (Morton & Hilts, 2005). A serial killer motivated by
anger may be driven by rage or hostility towards a specific population or society as a whole;
a killer motivated by criminal enterprise is motivated by the supposed beneficial monetary
outcome of his or her crime in relation to organized crime agencies; financial gain motivates
some killers to commit murder for monetary benefits; killers motivated by ideology believe
murder furthers their goals within a specific group; power/thrill motivates serial killers to feel
empowered or excited during the crime; mental illness such as psychosis causes some serial
killers to commit crimes; and serial killers are also affected by sexually-based motivations
(Morton & Hilts, 2005).Although the FBI recognizes the aforementioned motivations for
known serial killers to commit crimes, there is very little empirical data to suggest these are
the only acceptable motives for serial killers.

Female Serial Killers

Virtually all research that has been done about serial killers focuses on male serial killers,
which leaves out a small, but significant portion of suspects. In 1997, women committed
approximately 20% of all serial murders (Taylor et al., 2012). The typologies often attributed
to male serial killers by Holmes and De Burger do not account for serial murders committed
by women; instead, Kheller and Kheller (1998) proposed five alternative typologies for the
motivations of female serial killers (Taylor et al., 2012). These typologies include black
widow, angel of death, sexual predator, revenge, and profit for crime (Kheller & Kheller,
1998). A female serial killer who fits the profile of a black widow will kill multiple family
members, her significant others, or spouses; an angel of death will attempt to gain attention
from killing individuals under their medical care; a sexual predator will commit repetitive
sexually motivated murders; a revenge killer will commit the crimes out of hatred or
jealousy; and a profit for crime serial killer will seek monetary compensation or gain from
their crimes (Taylor et al., 2012). Similarly, Holmes and Holmes (1994) proposed five
typographies for female serial killers that parallel the motivations proposed for male serial
killers: visionary, comfort-oriented, power-seeking, hedonistic, and disciple killers (Miller,
2014a). According to these typographies a visionary female killer responds to disillusioned
voices; a comfort-oriented killer is also labelled a black widow killer who commits familial
murder for monetary gain; a power-seeking killer derives pleasure from having complete
control over their victim; a hedonistic killer will commit murder to achieve sexual
gratification; and a disciple killer—although rare—will kill under the direction of a
charismatic leader, as in a cult (Miller, 2014a). The Holmes and Holmes (1994) typographies
for female serial killers are very similar to those proposed by Kheller and Kheller (1998),
although they are named differently.

7
 FBI system of criminal profiling

Criminal profiling is a cross between law enforcement and psychology. It is still a relatively
new field with few set boundaries or definitions. Practitioners of criminal profiling do not
always agree on methodology or even terminology.
Despite their disagreements, however, practitioners of profiling all share a common goal of
analysing evidence gathered at a crime scene and statements provided by victims and
witnesses in order to develop a description of an unknown offender. The offender description
can include psychological factors such as antisocial personality traits, psychopathologies,
behavioural patterns, as well as demographic variables including, age, race and geographic
location.
The FBI system of criminal profiling, which dates back to the 1980s, involves a
comprehensive six-step process. As noted by Peter Vronsky in his 2004 book Serial Killers:
The Method and Madness of Monsters, each step is critical to the overall system, so the
quality of input at each step directly influences the subsequent steps.

Step 1: Profiling Inputs

Step 1 involves the gathering and organizing of all relevant case information. This includes
such items as a detailed report on the criminal investigation, crime scene photographs, a
description of the neighbourhood or area in which the murder occurred, the medical
examiner’s report, a timeline of the victim’s movements immediately before death and a
detailed background profile of the victim.

Step 2: Constructing a Decision Process Model

In this step, the fundamental characteristics and details of the homicide are established. These
include whether the killing was a serial or single murder, whether homicide was the primary
objective of the killer or incidental to another crime, whether the victim was a high-risk
individual such as a homeless person or a female sex worker versus a low-risk individual
such as a professional, married man. Additional factors used in constructing the decision
process model include whether the victim was killed at the scene of the attack or elsewhere
and, if elsewhere, the characteristics of the scene where the murder might have occurred.

Step 3: Crime Assessment

Step 3 of the process is the most involved. In this step, profilers decide whether the crime
scene has the characteristics of an organized offender, disorganized offender or a mix of both.
The breakthrough idea of classifying serial homicide crime scenes according to an
organized/disorganized dichotomy is credited to the late FBI agent and profiler Roy
Hazelwood. Profilers use a list of factors such as whether the victim’s body was positioned or
posed by the killer, whether sexual acts were performed before or after death and whether
cannibalism or mutilation was practiced on the body. These factors are used to predict

8
whether an unknown offender is an organized or disorganized killer. The
organized/disorganized classification of offenders is the centre piece of the FBI profiling
approach and it is explained below.

Organized Offenders

According to the offender and crime scene dichotomy, organized crimes are premeditated and
carefully planned, so little evidence is normally found at the scene. Organized criminals,
according to the classification scheme, are antisocial but know right from wrong, are not
insane and show no remorse.
Based on historical patterns, organized killers are likely to be above average-
average intelligence, attractive, married or living with a domestic partner, employed,
educated, skilled, orderly, cunning and controlled. They have some degree of social grace,
may even be charming, and often talk and seduce their victims into being captured.
With organized offenders, there are typically three separate crime scenes: where the victim
was approached by the killer, where the victim was killed, and where the victim’s body was
disposed of. Organized killers are very difficult to apprehend because they go to inordinate
lengths to cover their tracks and often are forensically savvy, meaning they are familiar with
police investigation methods. They are likely to follow the news media reports of their crimes
and may even correspond with the news media. Ted Bundy, Joel Rifkin and Dennis Rader are
prime examples of organized killers.

Disorganized Offenders
Disorganized crimes, in contrast, are not planned and the criminals typically leave
evidence such as fingerprints or blood at the scene of the murder. There is often no attempt to
move or otherwise conceal the corpse after the murder. Disorganized criminals may be
young, under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or mentally ill. They often have deficient
communication and social skills and may be below average in intelligence.
The disorganized offender is likely to come from an unstable or dysfunctional family.
Disorganized offenders often have been abused physically or sexually by relatives. They are
often sexually inhibited, sexually uninformed and may have sexual aversions or other
pathologies. They are more likely than organized criminals to be compulsive masturbators.
They are often isolated from others, live alone and are frightened or confused during the
commission of their murders. They often do not have reliable transportation, so they kill their
victims closer to home than organized offenders.
Significantly, disorganized killers will often “blitz” their victims—that is, use sudden and
overwhelming force to assault them. The victim’s body is usually left where the attack took
place and the killer makes no attempt to hide it. Jack the Ripper is a classic example of the
disorganized serial killer.

9
It is also important to note that a serial murder case can also be a mix of organized and
disorganized. This occasionally occurs, for example, when there are multiple offenders of
different personality types involved in the killings. It can also occur when a lone offender is
undergoing a psychological transformation throughout his killing career.

Step 4: Criminal Profile

In step 4 of the process, the FBI profiler produces a report for local investigators that predicts
the possible personality, physical and social characteristics of the unknown offender. The
profile lists objects that might be in possession of the killer such as pornography and may
propose strategies for identifying, apprehending and even questioning the accused. An FBI
profile can vary in length from a few paragraphs to a number of pages depending on how
much information the FBI had to analyse at the input step.

Step 5: Investigation
In step 5 the local police department incorporates the criminal profile developed by the FBI
into its own investigative strategy. Using the specific characteristics outlined in the FBI
profile, local law enforcement authorities can narrow the list of suspects and implement
strategies that are likely to lead to an arrest. If/when additional murders occur or additional
information is discovered, the profile can be updated or expanded by the FBI during the
investigation stage.
The first high-profile case in which FBI profilers successfully assisted local authorities in a
hunt for an unidentified serial killer was the Atlanta child murders of the early 1980s.
Pioneering FBI profilers John Douglas and Roy Hazelwood were sent to Atlanta to work with
local police and develop a profile in order to assist in the massive search for the killer.

Step 6: Apprehension
The final step of the FBI profiling process is apprehension. This is the accountability or
proof-of-performance step. The accuracy of an FBI profile can be determined by matching its
characteristics and details to those of the actual offender in custody. In the case of the Atlanta
child murders, for example, the profile developed by FBI agents Douglas and Hazelwood
proved to be extremely valid. When Wayne Williams was arrested in 1981, as predicted in
the profile, he was a single, young, black male who owned a German shepherd dog, as well
as a vehicle fitted with police lights that he used to impersonate a police officer and lure his
young victims.
The results of such successful investigations are added to the database in Quantico and the
computerized algorithms used by the profiling system are fine-tuned in order to increase
profiling accuracy in the future.

10
 Problems with Current Profiling Methods
Several problems exist with the current model of profiling used in the apprehension and
prosecution of serial killers. Currently, the profile that exists for serial killers is extremely
broad and vague. Especially problematic is the fact that law enforcement investigators—not
psychologists— complete a majority of the research and education done on criminal profiling
(Miller, 2014b). Although a majority of the research provided on the criminal profile of serial
killers focuses heavily on psychology, the research is completed by untrained individuals
who use case studies rather than empirical data to form their conclusions (Miller, 2014b).
Therefore, it is nearly impossible to accurately identify potential suspects during an
investigation. In order for law enforcement agencies to properly profile serial killers, they
must identify the problems associated with the current methods of profiling.

Defining serial killers.

The lack of a universal definition for serial killers makes profiling difficult. The classification
of serial killers often calls for a specific number of known victims; however, this begins to
cause problems because, in many cases, victims are not discovered until after the offender is
apprehended (Pakhomou, 2002). Similarly, there are currently various agencies and scholars
that do not agree on the number of victims required to have an offender be labelled as a serial
killer. Approximately only 20% of violent crime results in the apprehension and arrest of the
offender, which indicates that the number of known victims does not necessarily equal the
number of actual victims (Pakhomou, 2002). By defining serial killers based upon known
victims, many individuals can either be mistakenly identified as serial killers, or dangerous
serial killers can be left undetected because they have no murder conviction. Ultimately, the
current definition by the FBI may not fully encompass all serial killers because it is extremely
vague and requires two victims, whereas most scholarly definitions require many victims in
order to determine a repetitive pattern.

Personality disorders.
The FBI defines a serial killer as an individual with a personality disorder who kills two or
more people in separate events (Morton & Hilts, 2005); however, this definition is extremely
general. The FBI’s Behavioural Unit explains that there is no standard profile of a serial
killer, but their definition is still limited because many serial killers possess similar traits,
such as a lack of remorse, impulsivity, and controlling or predatory behaviour (Morton &
Hilts, 2005). These traits are often seen in psychopathic personality disorders, which include
the use of manipulation, intimidation, or charm to control others in an effort to achieve a goal
(Morton & Hilts, 2005). Some researchers state that the approximately two-thirds of serial
killers are clinically diagnosed as having anti-social— sociopathic or psychopathic—
personality disorders (Warf & Waddell, 2002). Yet, the majority of serial killers are not
significantly impaired by any personality disorder or defect; therefore, it is nearly impossible
to determine the influence of personality disorders on serial killers’ behaviors. (Pakhomou,
2004).

11
Using typographies.
The FBI’s use of typographies has several critical flaws. The FBI relies heavily on the use of
two categories of serial killers: organized and disorganized. By definition, organized killers
are meticulous and manipulative, while disorganized killers are often erratic and more likely
to make mistakes leading to their eventual apprehension and arrest (Taylor et al., 2012). The
FBI investigates different crime scene features, as well as the personality traits of both the
offender and victim that co-exist to help build a typography of a serial killer within the
disorganized or organized categories (Taylor et al., 2012). However, it is not possible in all
situations to typecast serial killers under these two categories based solely on crime scene
behaviours (Canter, Alison, Alison, & Wentink, 2004). Similarly, when organized crime
scene behaviours were analysed, it was discovered that these behaviours were present in most
serial killers, indicating that the disorganized typography is unnecessary because the
organized typography generally covers most serial killers (Canter et al., 2004). Also, the FBI
profiling technique does not consider the frequency of crime scene behaviour over all
criminal events, which ignores potentially common behaviours that are useful in
differentiating serial killers from average criminals (Taylor et al., 2012). Another problem
concerning the FBI typographies is the failure to include female serial killers. By removing
approximately half of the general population from typographies, some female serial killers
may be unidentified and therefore may remain at large. The last issue that arises from the
FBI’s typographies is that the relationship between the victim, offender, and their
environment is not considered (Taylor et al., 2012). It is accepted that the majority of serial
killers have no relationship with their victim (Warf & Waddell, 2002); however, ignoring the
potential relationship can lead to the misclassification of serial killers.

Problems associated with using FBI typographies for profiling female

serial killers.
Female serial killers will commit crimes with fundamentally different motivations than their
male counterparts. The organized or disorganized typographies used by the FBI do not
account for serial murders committed by females, especially because female serial killers use
fundamentally different methods of killing people than male serial killers, making them
difficult to label them as organized or disorganized (Taylor et al., 2012). Female serial killers
mostly use the following methods to commit murder: five percent drown their victims, eleven
percent stab their victims, sixteen percent use suffocation, and twenty percent use a firearm to
commit their crimes (Frei, Vollom, Graf, & Dittmann, 2006). Criminal profilers rely heavily
on typographies to direct law enforcement in apprehending suspects; therefore, the exclusion
of female serial killers from the typographies used by law enforcement does not account for
potentially dangerous individuals.

12
 Providing New Methods of Criminal Profiling

Providing New Methods of Criminal Profiling Criminal profiling of modern day serial killers
results in more problems than benefits for law enforcement. Law enforcement agencies, as
well as criminal profilers, use various definitions, typographies, and motives to help
investigate these crimes. These discrepancies influence the way a law enforcement agency
will investigate these crimes. Criminal profiling is used within most law enforcement circles,
and therefore the method should not be removed entirely; however, the aforementioned flaws
must be fixed in order to protect the public and reduce the potential of misidentifying
suspects.

Providing law enforcement with a new definition

The FBI should utilize their Behavioural Unit, NCAVC, to create a singular definition for all
law enforcement agencies to use during an investigation of these serial killings because it is
the primary unit within the FBI that deals with the investigation and identification of
American serial killers (Morton & Hilts, 2005). The NCAVC should remain responsible for
creating a uniformed definition to provide to all state and federal law enforcement agencies
that would encompass all prior definitions used in order to create easier means for states to
investigate crimes that occur over state lines. Additionally, this definition should include the
number of known victims, as well as the repetitive and sequential nature of the killings. The
FBI’s current definition requires only two victims (Morton & Hilts, 2005), which can lead to
erroneous identifications. It also does not account for the predatory nature serial killers often
possess. Therefore, the FBI should define a serial killer as “any individual, who may or may
not suffer from any anti-social personality disorder, who unlawfully commits repetitive and
sequential killings—three or more—with a “cooling off” period in between the crimes”
(Holmes & Holmes, 2010; Morton & Hilts, 2005; Pakhomou, 2004; Taylor et al., 2012).
Although broad, this definition still encompasses the predatory behaviour that serial killers
are known for without being applicable to all homicides. The proposed uniform definition
would merely provide a basic guideline for states to properly identify—not accuse— serial
killers, without impeding each state’s right to prosecute crime under that state’s laws.
Similarly, the FBI should no longer utilize the organized or disorganized categories of serial
killers because evidence shows that the majority of all serial killers show signs of being
organized. This indicates that the FBI’s categories do not help identify serial killers, and are
rather irrelevant because they can be applied to most criminal behavior (Canter et al., 2004).
The definitions of serial killers should remain exhaustive so they do not become confused
with other criminal behaviours.

Creating new typographies of serial killers

Along with providing a singular definition of what constitutes a serial killer, the NCAVC
should accumulate all typographies proposed for both male and female serial killers to create

13
a universal list that would guide law enforcement and health care practitioners to correctly
identify these individuals. This universal list should include the known typographies used by
researchers, as well as those used by law enforcement agencies: visionary, mission-oriented,
hedonistic or sexual, control, predator, paraphilic, sadistic, hate-oriented, thrill or attention
seeking, cult-oriented, family targeted, and instrumental (Dogra et al., 2012; White et al.,
2010). Accumulating the various typographies would allow law enforcement agencies and
profilers to include both male and female serial killers, and properly identify all serial killers
without hindering their investigation or limiting the known types of serial killers and their
motives. By providing a longer, more in depth list of serial killers, law enforcement agencies
would not be limited to defining a serial killer under a singular typography, but rather permit
law enforcement to label serial killers under many typographies. For example, a serial killer
may be labelled as a sexual sadist, or an attention seeking cult member, or both. This would
provide a better understanding of serial killers for law enforcement agencies, psychiatrists,
and psychologists, and would ultimately create greater chances of apprehending serial killers
sooner, which would save multiple lives that could have been lost at the hands of a serial
killer.

Restricting the use of profiling within criminal prosecution

Lastly, the use of criminal profilers should be used only as an investigative tool for law
enforcement, rather than a prosecutorial tool. Due to the current discrepancies among
definitions, typographies, and motives, criminal profiling does not provide law enforcement
with accurate data about serial killers. Until these changes can be made, criminal profilers
should be only used as a tool to help law enforcement agencies identify and investigate
potential serial killers—not to apprehend these individuals. However, law enforcement
agencies may use the advice of criminal profilers to investigate suspects and to locate
potential evidence from crime scenes. Definitions, typographies, and motives should only be
used to lead the law enforcement investigators in the right direction, but profilers should not
be present during interrogations or searches. Currently, the majority of research provided on
serial killers comes from law enforcement agencies—not psychologists; these individuals
should not be allowed to testify as expert witnesses in criminal proceedings. Expert testimony
can be prejudicial to a jury. As a result, this testimony should be excluded from court to
provide a fair trial for defendants. Profiling has been successful in the identification and
investigation of many suspects; therefore, profilers should be allowed to help prosecutors
identify offenders as serial killers when bringing charges against a defendant, and testify at
grand jury proceedings where guilt is not being determined. Conversely, criminal profilers
with degrees in psychology or psychiatry may be allowed to testify in court as expert
witnesses in their respective degree; however, these individuals should not speculate as to the
defendant’s classification as a serial killer. The purpose of these expert witnesses would only
be for providing psychological or medical analysis of the defendant’s state of mind

The impact of media influence on investigations.

In general, the media portray serial killers as power hungry sexual sadists; but realistically,
there are many different types of serial killers who commit crimes for different reasons and in
different fashions (Miller, 2014a). Similarly, the media often glorify the capture of serial
killers, making it appear as if law enforcement agencies are skilled at apprehending these

14
offenders, even though the actual closure rates among serial killing cases are fairly low
(Miller, 2014a). On the other hand, some of the media’s influence on the perception of serial
killers adds to the fear felt among the public – convincing them to believe there is an
epidemic of serial killers; however, this is grossly untrue (Warf & Waddell, 2002; Fox &
Levin, 1998). Media outlets are often self-proclaimed experts on serial killers and speculate
about the motives and potential profiles of serial killers without any empirical data (Morton
& Hilts, 2005). This can potentially impair law enforcement agencies’ abilities to investigate
these crimes by creating public outcry or influencing law enforcement agencies’ perceptions
of the murderer. Therefore, law enforcement agencies should only provide the media with
information regarding potential serial killers if law enforcement is attempting to locate a
specific person and requires the public’s help. This would allow law enforcement agencies to
investigate these crimes without being influenced by potentially mistaken statements given
by media outlets, and would reduce the level of moral panic from the public. Since there is
very little evidence that serial killers predominate in the United States, the level of fear in the
public is unwarranted. Ultimately, reducing the amount of information given to media outlets
would reduce the amount of fear the public has for this particularly rare crime.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the current model of criminal profiling used by law enforcement agencies has
many flaws. The FBI must analyse the current research on serial killers in order to form a
better understanding of how to investigate and apprehend these individuals. The current
profiling model relies on definitions, typographies, and motives to understand and identify
serial killers; yet, the current resources used do not encompass all possible offenders and
often exclude large portions of the population. The majority of the research done on modern
serial killers relies a great deal on the data collected from the eighteenth century. In order for
a more complete understanding of the modern American serial killer, psychiatrists and
psychologists, rather than law enforcement agencies, must complete more research. Similarly,
there must be more research on the concept of a female serial killer because the current
research enormously underestimates the amount of murders perpetrated by female offenders.
Future research would greatly benefit the understandings law enforcement officials and
health care practitioners have about serial killers. The increased understanding of this type of
crime would increase the preventative measures taken by law enforcement to identify these
criminals, which would decrease the amount of lives lost. Ultimately, until further research
can be completed on serial killers, criminal profilers should only be used as an investigative
tool, rather than a prosecutorial tool.

15
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
https://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug04/criminal
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/criminal-profiling
https://www.crimemuseum.org/
https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/wicked-deeds/201905/how-the-fbi-profiles-
serial-offenders

16
17